Creating a positive culture in law firms is no longer a matter of motivational posters or aspirational slogans. It has become a regulatory requirement, and rightly so. The SRA is clear that firms perform at their best when people are treated fairly, poor behaviour is addressed promptly, and leaders model the standards they expect. This shift from vague ideals to enforceable obligations reflects a growing recognition that culture is central to professional integrity.
Why challenging behaviour matters
We can all recognise the workplace behaviours that create toxic culture: public dress-downs that humiliate rather than teach, aggressive emails, persistent undermining disguised as feedback, exclusion from desirable work, and conduct targeting protected characteristics or vulnerabilities. Many of us will have witnessed or experienced these ourselves, particularly earlier in our careers.
But poor behaviour can erode trust and teamwork. When the high billers get a free pass, when targets and client pressure are allowed to overshadow professional integrity, it can easily lead to poor decisions and eventual conduct issues. As hard as this might be for the people around the offender, the damage is not confined to team morale. It can undermine professional judgment, increase client risk, and fundamentally erode public confidence in the profession.
Regulatory expectations
The SRA Principles require solicitors to act with integrity, uphold public trust, and encourage equality, diversity and inclusion. The SRA Code of Conduct for Individuals states: ‘You treat colleagues fairly and with respect. You do not bully or harass them or discriminate unfairly against them. If you are a manager you challenge behaviour that does not meet this standard.’ Firms have parallel duties under the Code of Conduct for Firms.
The SRA’s own thematic review on workplace culture reinforces these obligations. It found that poor culture undermines ethical decision-making and client service, while positive cultures, (marked by inclusivity, authentic leadership, and safe speak-up environments) reduce risk and improve performance. The regulator’s message is that policies alone are not enough: firms must embed these standards into everyday behaviours and systems.
Closing the gap between policy and practice
Many firms have policies that say the right things. The gap appears at the moment of truth i.e. when someone needs to act. Speaking up against a strong character, especially a senior figure, is hard. People fear retaliation or getting a reputation as someone who doesn’t toe the party line or makes a bit of a fuss.
Turning standards into habits starts with clear, short and explicit policies which set out the firm’s expectations. Embed the duty to challenge poor behaviour in induction, training, and partner meetings. The foundation is the messaging: from day one at the firm, staff need to know that any concerns will be taken seriously and any poor behaviour will be promptly addressed.
Some firms go further to equip managers with practical tools, like scripts that can be used to challenge behaviour. Specific training sessions around challenging behaviour, such as recognising discrimination or unconscious bias allows people to understand why a situation might be making a colleague uncomfortable.
Spotting it is one thing, calling it out is another. People should be given multiple reporting routes, such as their line manager, HR, COLP or COFA. Anonymous options lower the reporting barrier further, but have the potential to be abused. Peer support can allow for informal sounding boards: before someone reports, they might want to sense-check their approach. Having a safe space to talk through, reassure and ultimately affirm someone’s thinking means they don’t talk themselves out of reporting something.
It is important that everyone is reassured that reports will be taken seriously, and that there is a strict non-retaliation approach. Whilst it’s not always possible to tell the reporter the outcome of an investigation, keeping them informed as much as possible affirms trust in the system. Maintaining confidentiality and discretion as much as possible is key: people who are brought into the discussion or investigation should be on a “need to know” basis. In many firms, there may be speculation, even gossip. Taking measures to dampen these as much as possible will be relevant too, even if it is just reminding everyone about the need to remain professional.
Finally, supervision systems should cover behaviour monitoring as well as technical competency and other compliance checks. File reviews should commend examples of good supervision, and be on the look-out for questionable or inappropriate communications.
Aligning HR and compliance
HR handles fair employment processes whereas compliance applies the regulatory lens. There is potential for overlap when dealing with reports of toxic behaviour, but there has to be some agreement about when issues stay in HR, when COLP/COFA input is needed, and when the SRA reporting threshold is met.
There are also implications for recruitment and progression. Hiring, promoting, and rewarding people for how they deliver, not just what they deliver is a strong culture lever – you not only get the team you deserve, but the process sends a strong signal about behaviours that the firm favours. Behavioural expectations can also be made explicit at interviews and appraisals.
Some firms use HR tools like staff surveys, targeted interviews, reviews of complaints and exit interviews to identify if there is a perceived problem with challenging behaviour.
From a purely compliance perspective, beyond the required policy work, conduct issues must be monitored and documented. Short decision notes on conduct issues and SRA reporting assessments should be kept.
Policies matter, but habits dictate culture. Clear standards, confident managers, trusted reporting lines, practical supervision, and HR-Compliance alignment all work to reduce risk. The regulator’s focus is on what happens when lines are crossed, and ensuring that systems are in place to challenge challenging behaviours.
